No, it's still true. The only way for Windows to compete with Core Audio is to buy an AD/DA converter that has good custom drivers, which brings your options down to 2 or 3 companies. It might not be the thread for this, but your statement is not true for all applications. Just wanted to clarify that.
The fact that nobody on Earth who needs to protect anything vaguely valuable relies on MSE should say everything that needs to be said. And that's a lot of work just to browse the web. No. Norton were caught leaving spyware on people's systems a while back. Wouldn't go near them with a barge pole. Avira works well. Malwarebytes works well. But I just use Linux and Steam.
I've ran MSE for over a year maybe two with no issues whatsoever. I have it installed on one of my laptops. It really depends on what you do. (That's where other things come in.) Like Malwarebytes, and the Anti Exploit. You stop viruses at the source. I don't browse just the Web, I mentioned any AV, MB, + Anti Exploit is generally more than enough depending on what you do. The other processes that I mentioned take place maybe once a month, and take less than 5 minutes... I don't see how that is a lot of work. For a more comprehensive AV scan, put it on, go do something else, cook, watch a movie, go out. We have different ideas of a lot of work.
Nearly all large antivirus companies (among others) offer limited deals on their software. I've been using premium versions for years and never pay for them. I've used avast, kaspersky, bitdefender and eset premium versions. When they launch new products they generally offer 6 months to a year free. It's just a question of catching them.
In terms of protection it's still only scoring 3 out of 6 in this test. That's not good. Surely Microsoft should know how to protect their own OS better than third party vendors? It doesn't matter if your software is super easy to use and is very efficient with resources if it doesn't actually do what it was intended to do. Time and time again Microsoft have failed this test. They claimed in 2013 the test wasn't fair or realistic. But their competitors still managed to do better. Basically according to av-test.org, almost anything you put on your Windows PC will provide better protection than MSE.
They don't test well, because they don't specialize in 0 day threats, I'm no fan of Microsoft but other companies have a vested interest and massive departments that look out for threats and counter them, Microsoft just don't do that.
I've been using Avast for the last few years. It's free and only occasionally gives a false positive.
If anyone's interested... http://www.topsoftbargains.com/w/bitdefender-total-security-2015-discount-coupon/ It's the 2016 version, not 2015.
And this is why I never recommend AVG. Time and again they screw things up. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35198435
Don't you think they should? I mean that's a pretty odd statement to make about the developer of the worlds most ubiquitous general purpose desktop OS. I guess this explains why it takes them so long to patch zero day exploits.
Should? No. Why bother putting millions (billions?) into a department that many free companies can take care of? What next Android phone makers must have security installed on their phones? It's not their duty.
It's not their duty to make sure their software/hardware is secure? Some phone makers do ship additional and optional security features.
Yes and no. Security is hard, let's face it. So why not leave security to the experts? Yes, they should provide a baseline (which MS does), but outside of that there is a wide open market.
I think I agree with that, as long as the baseline is solid. But things like superfish are unacceptable. I'm of the opinion that products should ship with decent security installed because most people don't understand them or want the bother of installing additional protection, so they don't.
Their software is secure. If you decide to connect it to the net, and open something or download something that was down to you or human error why are they to blame? What next car companies start doing their own insurance? Is it a manufacturers fault if you leave your keys in the car? If you crash the car while driving at 150mph? No. So how is it a an OS companie's fault that you do things that mess it up? Or you install something that messes it up? Install a new OS, don't connect it to the internet, just use it for word processing and adding pictures watching movies. It will not fail you until the hardware dies. If YOU decide to do something with it. That isn't Microsoft's fault. Should I complain that my house doesn't have bulletproof windows to the people who made it?
Their software is absolutely designed, in part, to use internet. So I should be fine using it with common sense (if I visit obscure/dangerous .onion sites and get infected of course it´s my fault) + baseline protection + extra if I go to dodgy sites or feel like it. This seems reasonable to me. Of course common sense is somewhat hard to define. Taking your car analogy. I should be able to drive my car on gravel or bumpy roads if I'm careful. If I want to drive in thick snow, I might have to buy extra safety gear. A middle of the road seems reasonable to me. Do you agree that manufacturers should not ship their computers with stuff like superfish?
I can't seem to quote you for some reason. I don't even know what superfish is. But after a quick Google search, I make all my computers or get custom Sager/Clevo laptops made with no OS. I like a bare bones approach.
